JUDGMENT OF TAYLOR J.
The plaintiff by her solicitor sued the defendants claiming N¢300.00 damages against the defendants as endorsed on her writ of summons:
"for the unlawful destruction of the plaintiff's cocoa pods and food stuffs by the defendants' sheep at the plaintiff's cocoa farm at Apemso on a land commonly known and called 'Apemso-Mfikyire' on the Asokore stool land bounded by the properties of Yeboah and Kwasi Manu."
The application for the writ of summons at the district court grade II was headed "Under undefended list." It was an application apparently made under Order 2, r. 9 of the Schedule II to Courts Ordinance, Cap. 4 (1951 Rev.), the rules governing civil procedure in the district courts. It was supported by an affidavit setting forth the grounds upon which the claim was based and it complied with the requirements of the said Order 2, r. 9 which reads as follows: [His lordship here read the provisions of Order 2, r. 9 as set out in the headnote and continued:]
The procedure to be adopted by a defendant who intends to defend is fully set out in Order 2, r. 11 of the said Schedule II and is as follows: [His lordship here read the provisions of Order 2, r. II as set out in the headnote and continued:]
It seems to me that the district magistrate has misconceived and misapplied the provisions of Order 2, r. 9 (supra). That rule is only applicable in cases where the plaintiff's application is in respect of a claim to recover (1) a debt, or (2) a liquidated money demand.
If the claim does not fall within (1) or (2) then it is not a proper claim to be placed on the undefended list. The claim in this case is clearly not a debt so it does not fall within (1); it is also not a liquidated money demand for a money demand is said to be liquidated when it is fixed or ascertained. The words debt or liquidated demand do not extend to unliquidated damages whether in tort or in contract even though the amount of such damages be named as a definite figure: see Knight v. Abott, Page & Co. (1882) 10 Q.B.D. 11.
Indeed it seems that the sum of N¢300.00 claimed by the plaintiff in her writ is clearly an unliquidated demand and the district magistrate did recognise it as such. In his ruling he said of this claim:
"The second issue as to whether N¢300.00 damages is a liquidated claim can be simply answered that on the facts it could not be liquidated. That second issue is then ruled in favour of the defendant for its uncertainty is in the quantificatio
